god and “gods” — poetic ambiguity and wordplay: a proposal ...archive.atsjats.org/santrac d -...

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 27/1 (2016): 37-54.Article copyright © 2016 by Dragoslava Santrac.

God and “Gods” — Poetic Ambiguity andWordplay: A Proposal towards a BetterUnderstanding of Ps 82

Dragoslava SantracWashington Adventist UniversityTacoma Park, MD

IntroductionIn Ps 82 God speaks in the first person and, through a series of

rhetorical questions and exhortations, pronounces judgment on the“gods” 1 (vv. 1b, 6!7) who pervert social justice (vv. 2!4). The fall ofthe “gods” proves that authority and power are insufficient to secureone’s rule in the world. In contrast to them, God is the everlasting Judgebecause He acts with integrity and compassion (vv. 1, 8).

Although the psalm poses no textual or linguistic problems, a brieflook at the commentaries shows that scarcely any psalm has received amore diverse interpretation than Ps 82. This is due to difficulty ofdetermination of the precise meaning of certain key words andexpressions in the psalm, which seemingly permit of more than oneconnotation. This kind of difficulty or uncertainty is encountered right atthe beginning of the psalm, in v. 1, and continues until the end of thepsalm, particularly in vv. 6!7. The words of Hans-Joachim Kraus can beused to express the overall impression about the psalm that is conveyedby the general disagreement among the biblical scholars about the

1 In this work, like in the NIV, quotation marks are added to gods in vv. 1b and 6, butthese are not found in the Hebrew text (quotation marks do not appear anywhere in theHebrew Bible). The function of these quotation marks is to indicate that the word is beingused in a sense different from its usual one and its other occurrences in vv. 1a and 8 (wherethe word evidently depicts the God of Israel).

37

JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

psalm’s meaning: “Psalm 82 is of such exceptional character in thePsalter that it could well be impossible to provide interpretations that arein every respect satisfactory.”2

The most puzzling moment in the psalm is the identity of the “gods”(’elohim) in vv. 1b and 6. The word ’elohim is mentioned four times inthis short psalm, clearly depicting the God of Israel in vv. 1a and 8.However, its meaning in vv. 1b and 6 is obviously different andpuzzling: Does ’elohim denote supernatural beings, namely the pagangods (such as, for example, Pss 86:8; 96:4!5; 97:7, 9) or angels (Job 1:6;2:1; Ps 8:5)? Or, does it convey the notion of human authorities whoacted in God’s name, referring to native Israelite judges and leaders(Exod 4:16; 21:63; 22:28 [NIV, in the note]; 1 Sam 2:25; 2 Sam 19:27)?Or, does it reflect some ancient Near Eastern practices to idolize kingsand view them as incarnate deities, denoting the kings of the nations?4

Or, does ’elohim express the notion of “the mighty ones,” referring tolocal and/or foreign oppressors, who are often mentioned in the Psalms(e.g., Pss 52:1; 69:4; 135:10; 136:18)? The meaning of ‘adat ’el (“theassembly of God”) in v. 1 is also uncertain. The identity of the ’elohim invv. 1b and 6 is crucial to the understanding of this phrase and of thewhole psalm.

This study proposes to alleviate some of the difficulties of Ps 82 byreading them as an intentional poetic ambiguity which causes readers toreassess as they read.5 Paul R. Raabe argues that sometimes “a word,

2 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg,1989), 155.

3 The KJV, NKJV, and NIV render ’elohim as “the judges” in Exod 21:6. The NASBand NJPS list this option in the note. The RSV, ESV, NASB, and NJPS have “God.”

4 For more information about the ANE views of some kings as deities see, for example,Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography andthe Book of Psalms (New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1978), 225!226, 263.

5 For a discussion about and possible examples of deliberate ambiguity in the Psalter,see, for example, Patrick D. Miller, Jr. “Poetic Ambiguity and Balance in Psalm XV” VT29/4 (1979): 416-424; Paul R. Raabe, “Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter,” JBL 110/2(1991): 213!227. The various types of ambiguity (e.g., lexical, phonetic, and grammatical)are long known in literary theory (e.g., W. Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity [Edinburgh:Constable, 1930]; W. B. Stanford, Ambiguity in Greek Literature: Studies in Theory andPractice [Oxford: Blackwell, 1939]; M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms [NewYork: 1971], 8!10; S. Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning[Oxford: Blackwell, 1962], 156-192, which Miller and Raabe cite). Raabe seeks todetermine when ambiguity in the Psalms is deliberate (Raabe, 213!214, 226!227). For asimilar approach to some other biblical texts, see, for example, John Kselman, “Ambiguity

38

SANTRAC: GOD AND “GODS”– POETIC AMBIGUITY AND WORDPLAY

phrase, or sentence could be understood in two (or more) ways becauseboth were intended.”6 Poetic ambiguity is deliberate, namely it inherentlylies in the text and is supported by the context, and is not the result of thereader’s misunderstanding. The term “ambiguity” should be understoodas conveying the multivalence and the puzzling nature of the text withoutthe negative connotation of deceitfulness that the term often carries.7 Iwould like to suggest here that poetic ambiguity should not be regardedas a burden to the study of the biblical text, but rather as the possibilityfor an enriched interpretation of the psalm. Harvey Minkoff points outthat “[p]erhaps deliberate ambiguity may contain theologicalsignificance.”8 This means that overlooking or undermining thepsalmist’s deliberate ambiguity may result in one-sided or incompleteunderstanding of the psalm.

The purpose of this article is twofold: 1) to attempt to demonstratedeliberate poetic ambiguity in Ps 82, and 2) to show that deliberatepoetic ambiguity in Ps 82, if it exists, is not simply an expression of thepoet’s artistic creativity, but conveys also the theological message of thepsalm. The following steps are undertaken to meet this purpose: 1)briefly look at the main interpretations of the psalm, 2) discuss theliterary technique of poetic ambiguity in the Psalms, 3) discern possiblepoetic ambiguity in the psalm, and 4) understand Ps 82 theologically inthe light of deliberate poetic ambiguity.

The Main Interpretations of Ps 82Attention is given, and only briefly, to four main interpretations of

the psalm. In recent times most authors interpret the “gods” in vv. 1b and6 as the gods of the nations, assuming the mythological background ofthe psalm. They argue that the psalm resembles the ancient Canaanitemyth of god El ruling over the lower gods. The gods were condemned byIsrael’s God in the supreme heavenly court because they failed toembody His demand for justice. The imagery of the pagan pantheon ofgods (‘adat ’el, “the assembly of God”) is used to dramatically portrayGod’s sovereignty over all powers and His judgment on the rule of evil

and Wordplay in Proverbs XI” VT 52/4 (2002): 545-548; Benjamin J. M. Johnson,“‘Whoever Gives Me Thorns and Thistles’: Rhetorical Ambiguity and the Use of ïúé éî inIsaiah 27:2!6,” JSOT 36/1 (2011): 105-126.

6 Raabe, 213.7 Ibid.8 Harvey Minkoff, “A Theological Reason for Ambiguity,” JBQ 28/4 (2000): 246.

39


in the world.9 The advocates of this view often render the Hebrewparticiple nitsab (“standing”) and the preposition be (“in”) as “presidesover” in support of the view that Israel’s God is the presiding deity overthe council of gods.10 Some authors suggest that the psalm reflects theongoing shift from polytheistic worldview to firm monotheism in ancientIsrael’s thought.11 Following a similar line of interpretation, someauthors believe that “gods” are the guardian angels of the nations.12

An overtly mythological reading of the psalm raises the question ofhow the psalm was understood by the ancient Israelites. The polytheisticview of the world was unacceptable to Israelite firm monotheism (Deut4:35, 39; Ps 96:5). Yet the psalmists “used the thought forms, thelanguage, the images that were given to them out of their environment,

9 For example, Artur Weiser, The Psalms, The Old Testament Library (translated byH. Hartwell; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1962), 556!561; Mitchell S. J. Dahood,Psalms. 3 vols. Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1968),17a:268!271; J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 51!100, The Cambridge BibleCommentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 164!165; Patrick D. Miller,Jr., Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 120!124; Kraus, 155!158;J. Clinton McCann, Jr., A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms asTorah (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1993), 122!124; Idem, “The Book of Psalms,” in1&2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, Psalms, ed. Leander E. Keck, 12vols., The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 4:1006!1008; MarvinE. Tate, Psalms 51!100, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 20 (Dallas, TX: Word Books,1990), 340!341; James L. Mays, Psalms, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teachingand Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994), 268!271; Robert Davidson, TheVitality of Worship: A Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1998), 270!273; Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and TheologicalCommentary, Critical Eerdmans Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003),588!591; Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York:Norton & Company, 2009), 291!293; Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, The Expositor’sBible Commentary, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 623!627; Beth Tanner,“Psalm 82: King of the Gods,” in The Book of Psalms, New International Commentary onthe Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 641!644.

10 For an extensive study of many Old Testament passages (including Ps 82) in the lightof their possible Canaanite (Ugaritic) parallels, see, for example, E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.,The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard SemiticMonographs 24 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980). For an overview of the main mythologicalinterpretations of Ps 82 and a useful bibliography, see James M. Trotter, “Death of the íéäìà in Psalm 82,” JBL 131/2 (2012): 221!239.

11 For example, Miller, 121!122; Davidson, 271!272.12 For example, Elmer B. Smick, “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms,” WTJ 44/1

(1982), 96; Nahum M. Sarna, Songs of the Heart: an Introduction to the Book of Psalms(New York: Schocken Books, 1993), 168!175.

40


but they used them and transformed them in the service of a particularview of the intention and purpose of God in the human community.”13

Artur Weiser points out that the fact that the “gods” now stand before thejudgment seat of God “shows how little the psalm is spiritually tied tothe polytheistic root of the conception it here adopts.”14 It is thus possiblethat the psalmist in his poetic expression describes here an imaginative,symbolical trial rather than a literal event in heaven. If this notion iscorrect, the goal of the psalm is to highlight the notion that the gods ofthe nations are worthless, lifeless idols, and not “gods” at all (Pss 86:8;96:5; 97:7). Like certain other psalms, Ps 82 depicts them as “gods”(’elohim) in order to highlight the sovereignty, uniqueness, and majestyof the God of Israel who will destroy them (Pss. 95:3; 97:7; 135:5;136:2).

According to another view, ’elohim (“gods”) refers to the membersof the celestial council presided over by the Lord (Job 1:6!12; 2:1!6; Isa14:12). The proponents of this view argue that “the congregation of themighty” (‘adat ’el, “the assembly of God”) in v. 1 refers to the heavenlyassembly or body of counselors that we encounter in 1 Kgs 22:19!22(tseba’ hashamayim, “the host of heaven”) and Job 1:6!12; 2:1!7 (beneha’elohim, “the sons of God”).15

An older interpretation interprets ’elohim (“gods”) as human judgesand leaders who are answerable to God, the Supreme Judge.16 Accordingto this view, “the congregation of the mighty” (‘adat ’el, “the assemblyof God”) refers to the assembly of Yahweh (‘adat yhwh) (Num 27:17;Jos 22:17!18) or the assembly of Israel (‘adat yisra’el) (1 Kgs 8:5; 2Chron 5:6), namely the assembly of God’s people. The advocates of thisview argue that vv. 2!4 provide the interpretative key for theunderstanding of the “gods” (’elohim) and the opening scene in v. 1. Theprimary task of the “gods” as described in vv. 2!4 is to maintain social

13 Miller, 121. 14 Weiser, 558.15 For example, Cyrus H. Gordon, “íéäìà in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,”

JBL 54 (1935): 139!144; Roger T. O’Callaghan, “A Note on the Canaanite Background ofPsalm 82,” CBQ 15/5 (1953), 313!314; Tate, 335; Tremper Longman III, Psalms, 15!16vols., Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014),305!308.

16 For example, F. Delitzsch, “Fifth Book of the Psalter, Ps. cxx!cxxxiv,” in Psalms,Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 5:400!404;John Calvin, quoted in Kraus, 155.

41


justice. In other words, the sphere of their domain is the earth (vv. 5, 8).The charges listed in vv. 2!4 echo the laws of the Torah, identifying the“gods” more precisely as the judges and leaders of Israel (Deut 1:16, 17;16:18!20). These charges are “precisely what the Judean king isentrusted with in Psalm 72 (see especially 72:1!7, 12!14).”17 Theterminology of the judicial procedure here employed is precisely same asin numerous Psalms18 and in many passages of the prophetic,19

legalistic,20 and wisdom21 literature.22 Both Midrash and Talmud follow asimilar line of interpretation.23 The possible explanation of why theIsraelite judges and leaders are called ’elohim (gods) in this psalm is thatthey were appointed and empowered by God to represent Him before thepeople. This interpretation strongly leans on the way Jesus quoted v. 6 inJohn 10:34!36.24

17 J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “The Single Most Important Text in the Entire Bible: Towarda Theology of the Psalms,” in Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives andMethods in Contemporary Scholarship, ed. Rolf A. Jacobson (Minneapolis, MN: FortressPress, 2011), 69.

18 For example, Pss 1:5; 37:32!33; 94:21; 109:7.19 For example, Isa 1:7; 5:23, 28; 10:1!2; Jer 22:3; Amos 3:6!7; 5:7, 12; Zeph 3:3;

Zech 7:9!10.20 For example, Exod 23:1, 6-7; Lev 19:15; Deut 1:7; 16:18; 24:17; 25:1!2; 27:19. 21 For example, Job 5:15!16; 24:9, 14; 29:12!14; 31:16!17; 34:17!28; Prov 13:5;

14:31; 17:15; 18:5; 21:12!14; 22:23!24; 15:26; 29:7; 31:9; Eccl 5:7.22 Julian Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA 14 (1939):

31.23 See references in Trotter, 229, and Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J., “‘I said: You are Gods’:

Psalm 82:6 ad John 10,” JBL 108/4 (1989): 655!663. Some ancient translations, such asPeshitta, have the word ’elohim (“God” or “gods”) in Exod 22:28 translated as “judges” tocorrespond to the occurrence of nasi’ (ruler) in the second part of the verse. Peshitta and itspossible source Targum Onqelos cannot be taken as valiable basis for proposing “judges”as the translation of ’elohim in Ps 82:1, 6 because of the Targum's tendency to amend somebiblical texts to avoid theological offensiveness to God, which seems to be the case also inExod 22:28 (also, 1 Sam 28:13) (Trotter, 229). Yet these examples demonstrate that theword “judges” was a likely association for the word ’elohim to these ancient editors, and soperhaps also to the ancient readers and hearers of the Ps 82. For more information about therabbinic interpretation of Ps 82, see, for example, James S. Ackerman, “The RabbinicInterpretation of Ps 82 and the Gospel of John,” HTR 59/2 (1966): 186!191, and CarlMosser, “The earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and theOrigin of Christian Deification,” JTS 56 (2005): 59!72.

24 For an examination of the understanding and function of Ps 82:6 in John 10:34!36see, for example, Neyrey, 647!663, and Stephen L. Homcy, “‘You are Gods’? Spiritualityand a Difficult Text,” JETS 32/4 (1989): 485!491.

42


A fourth view rests on the notion that the kings of the nations wereoften regarded as having divine status in ancient Near East cultures.Psalm 82 is believed to tell of Yahweh’s judgment over the kings of thesurrounding nations who thought of themselves as divine. Theproponents of this view contend that vv. 2!4 are more appropriatelydirected to human rulers acting in an unjust manner than pagan deities,because the accusations assume a continual and repeated interactionbetween the ’elohim and everyday human affairs, particularly socialjustice. Strong emphasis is placed on the supposed parallels between Ps82 and the Ugaritic Kirta text on the issue of gods’ moral responsibilityfor the maintenance of a just world. Some similarities between this viewand the view that ’elohim are Israel’s judges are seen in their commonacknowledgment that the psalm’s accusations are best understood asfailure in regard to human (royal or judicial) responsibilities.25

This brief overview of the major interpretations of the psalm leavesus with an impression that each interpretation of the psalm canapparently be defended. At the same time, none of the suggestedinterpretations is in every respect satisfactory, because they fail toacknowledge the opposite standpoint of view in order to strengthen thepreferred interpretation.26 However, the challenge is not necessarily theresult of an exegetical misstep on the commentators’ part, but appears tobe inherent to the psalm. Julian Morgenstern observes that the psalm canbe hardly read in one way.27 Raabe rightly points out that some scholarsmiss some of the ambiguity of the text, because the task of interpretationis usually to bring one final solution, forcing the interpreters to choose

25 For example, Trotter, 233!239; Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen (1922), 211, MosesButtenwieser, The Psalms, Chronologically Treated with a New Translation (1938; repr.,New York: Ktav, 1969), 764!770, and Parker, “Beginning of the Reign of God,” 543!548(cited in Trotter, 233).

26 This is discussed later in this article in Deliberate Poetic Ambiguity and Wordplayin Ps 82.

27 Morgenstern argues that vv. 2!4 must refer to human judges in accordance to thejudicial language elsewhere in the Bible. On the other hand, he maintains that the Ugaritictexts furnished some of the background of the psalm, especially in vv. 1b and 6. He proposesradical emendation of the psalm and argues that the psalm in the present form is not anoriginal unit but contains later insertions (vv. 2!4) for an original account of God’spunishment of the lesser gods for the sins recounted in Gen 6:1! 4 (Morgenstern, 31!33).Yet certain scholars have rejected Morgenstern’s alteration of the psalm as unwarranted andunnecessary (e.g., O’Callaghan, 312; Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 76/1[1964]: 30).

43


only one of the possibilities.28 The point here is that readers are not askedto always choose one version or viewpoint. Sometimes, as it seems to bethe case with Ps 82, biblical authors intentionally created ambiguity notonly to demonstrate their artistic mastery but also, and perhaps moreimportantly, to convey the theological truth on different levels.

Definition, Forms, and Purpose of Poetic Ambiguity“In poetics, ambiguity represents the intentional creation of texts that

can be understood in multiple ways.”29 Poetic ambiguity is created bycertain word combinations that, for example, include words which can bepolyvalent (i.e., have multiple meanings).30 By means of poeticambiguity, biblical writers have tried to focus the hearer’s/reader’sattention on a particular passage. However, this stirring up of curiosity isnever the main purpose. Poetic ambiguity points to the deeper meaningsand connections between the words in a given literary context. Thecreation of ambiguity thus serves to enhance the central message of thetext.31

Strictly speaking there are several types of ambiguity, but thedistinction between them is not always clear.32 For practical reasons, the

28 Raabe, 213.29 D. G. Firth, “Ambiguity,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry &

Writings, eds. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,2008), 11.

30 Lexical polyvalence includes homonymy and polysemy. Homonymy is when two ormore words are identical in sound (homophones) or in spelling (homographs) but havedifferent meanings (e.g., ’al [not] and ‘al [on] are homophones). Homonymy serves as basisfor phonetic ambiguity. Phonetic ambiguity “uses a word with one meaning but which alsoevokes the meaning of another (nonwritten) word(s) by virtue of homophony” (Raabe, 217).For example, in Ps 96:4 the word ’elohim (“gods”) which depicts the gods of other nationsis homophonous with and so evocative of the word ’elilim (“idols”). The latter evoked wordis picked up in the first colon in v. 5. The phonetic pun conveys the message that the godsof the nations only appear to be ’elohim (“gods”), but in reality are merely ’elilim (“idols”).Polysemy implies that one word can have several meanings (e.g. zamir [I. “pruning,” II.“song”]). For more information about other poetic devices involving sound (e.g., assonance,alliteration, rhyme, and onomatopoeia), see, for example, Wilfred G. E. Watson, ClassicalHebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (New York, NY: T & T Clark International,2006), 222!250.

31 Valerie Kabergs and Hans Ausloos, “Paronomasia or Wordplay? A Babel-LikeConfusion Towards a Definition of Hebrew Wordplay,” Biblica 93/1 (2012): 10.

32 For example, ambiguity can be lexical (when words have multiple meanings),phonetic (when a word with one meaning evokes the meaning of another word by virtue ofhomophony), and grammatical (e.g., when a sentence has ambiguous word order or

44


differences are ignored in this article. “Poetic ambiguity,” the term usedby Patrick Miller,33 is preferred here because it can serve as an umbrellaterm for a combination of poetic devices involving ambiguity. Onespecific type of ambiguity, namely sustained ambiguity, however, seemsto be especially relevant for the study of Ps 82. In some psalms,including likely Ps 82, ambiguity is sustained over several verses or theentire psalm. Readers begin to read the text one way, but then a laterverse causes them to doubt their initial understanding of the psalm, andso engages them to reread the psalm from the beginning and to reassessits meaning.34

Poetic ambiguity creates the possibility for wordplay. Wordplayrefers to the practice of some biblical authors to use sound and meaningof words to make a pun. Wordplay, like picture, conveys the messagealmost instantly, and makes a deeper impact on readers or hearers thanordinary speech/writing. So, for instance, the wordplay on khasid andkhesed in Ps 86 portrays the close relationship between God, who is fullof khesed (“grace”), and the psalmist, who is khasid (“godly”) (vv. 2, 5,13, 15).35 The literary context in which wordplay manifests itself isdecisive in whether or not wordplay comes to realization. Poeticambiguity, and so wordplay which is based on it, owe their existence tothe literary context. In like manner, the full meaning of a particularliterary context can only be grasped when the wordplay iscomprehended.36

unspecified subject or object). For more explanation, see, for example, Raabe, 214!227;Watson, 237!250.

33 Miller, 416.34 Raabe, 224. Psalm 7:11!16 is a good example of sustained ambiguity. “God [is] a

just judge, And God is angry [with the wicked] every day” (v. 11). The subject of v. 11 isGod. Verses 12!16 have “he” as their subject. At first, the reader assumes that God is thesubject of all verbs in vv. 12!16 in light of v. 11, but then realizes that vv. 14!16 could notspeak about God but His enemies. The reader thus has to retrace his steps and find where theshift from “he” being “God” to being “enemies” occurred (Raabe, 224!225). Notice thatsome English Bible versions supply certain words in v. 14, which are not found in theHebrew text (e.g., “the wicked,” NKJV; “whoever,” NIV; “the wicked man,” ESV, RSV),in order to help readers avoid possible confusion.

35 For other definitions, forms, and examples of wordplays in biblical Hebrew literature,see, for example, Watson, 237!250.

36 Kabergs and Ausloos, 11.

45


In the following section, I will attempt to demonstrate deliberateambiguity and wordplay in Ps 82, and try to elucidate the psalm’smessage in the light of its possible ambiguity.

Deliberate Poetic Ambiguity and Wordplay in Ps 82Poetic ambiguity in Ps 82 is reinforced by repetition of certain words

of multiple meanings.37 The key repeated words in the psalm are ’elohim(“God,” “gods”) (vv. 1 [2x], 6, 8), shapat (“judge,” “rule,” “deliver”)(vv. 1, 2, 3, 8), and ’erets (“earth,” “humankind”) (vv. 5, 8). I willattempt to show how the repetition of these words, particularly of’elohim, and their different meanings create ambiguity in the psalm.

The psalmist has created a slight confusion by using the same term’elohim to depict both the God of Israel and those who are inferior to him(vv. 1, 6 & 8). Although the word ’elohim appears numerous times in thePsalms to depict both the God of Israel and those who are inferior toHim, Ps 82 is the only psalm in which uncertainty about the meaning ofthis word occurs (perhaps also Ps 138:1). In the Psalms when it does notdepict the God of Israel, ’elohim most often refers to the gods of thenations (e.g., Pss 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9; 135:5). This notion may causereaders to assume that the word has this meaning also in Ps 82, and sounderstand the trial scene in v. 1 as the psalmist’s poetic way to proclaimthe sovereignty of the God of Israel, similar to other psalms (e.g., Pss89:10; 92:8!11; 93:3!4; 104:5!13).38 Verse 1 seems thus to portray Godpresiding over the council of supernatural (real or believed to be so)beings.

The Hebrew phrase nitsab ba‘adat ’el (“stands in the congregation ofthe gods”) is rendered by some as “presiding over the council of gods” insupport of the view that the God of Israel is the presiding chief deity ofthe pantheon of gods. However, the rendering of natsab, which simplymeans “stands,” as “presides” is highly interpretative. Some authors

37 Lowell K. Handy demonstrates that the psalmist utilized not only repetition of wordswith multiple meanings but also repetition of sound patterns to indicate emphasis in thepoem and unite the poem as a whole (Lowell K. Handy, “Sounds, Words and Meanings inPsalm 82,” JSOT 47 [1990]: 51!66).

38 As discussed earlier, Israelite poetry did not flourish in a cultural vacuum, but offereda culturally recognizable and enjoyable framework to its unique theological message. Yetthe pagan imagery is polemically redefined, namely it is not given the meaning andsignificance that it is ascribed in ancient Near Eastern literature, to command the enduringmajesty of God.

46


argue that God’s position as “standing” (natsab) indicates that Godstands to pronounce the verdict against the accused. If God was imaginedas presiding over the divine assembly, He would be portrayed as sitting.39

God “stands” or “rises” to pronounce the sentence after the legalproceedings are over (Pss 12:5; 76:8!9). That is why in the Psalms Godis frequently called upon to “arise,” namely to act and execute thejudgment (e.g., Pss 3:7; 7:6; 9:19; 10:12; 17:13; 44:23, 26).40 The verbnatsab parallels the verb qum (“arise”) in v. 8, which is indicative ofdivine judgment.

In addition, the judicial sentence proclaimed against the “gods” invv. 2!4 clearly reflects God’s expectations of justice from the Israelitejudges and the people (Deut 1:16, 17; 16:18!20; Ps 72:1!7; 12!14).The question arises: If the psalmist had in mind a mock trial of the pagangods, why did he make strong allusions to the Torah in vv. 2!4? Pagangods were not given the task of upholding the Torah, and so could hardlybe judged for not fulfilling it. Likewise, the foreign divine kings andoppressors are not likely represented in vv. 2!4. In addition, if the“gods” (v. 1) here are the divine kings of foreign nations, would not thepagan tyrant oppress the entire company of Israel and not merely only“the poor and the fatherless” and “the afflicted and the needy” (vv. 3!4)?The psalmist clearly does not speak of the oppressed as the whole nationof Israel (like in Pss 74, 79, 80), but rather as the weak andunderprivileged individuals within Israel.41 The divine judgment thus

39 Trotter, 225!228. Various occurrences in the Scripture demonstrate that a judge inIsrael was normally seated (Exod 18:13; Judg 4:5; 1 Kgs 7:7; Ruth 4:2; Isa 16:5; 28:6; Ps122:5). God, in contrast, is often depicted as standing when He judges (Pss 7:6; 9:19; 12:5;76:9; Isa 3:13). Whereas it is the usual posture of God, in conception or vision, to be seatedas He is surrounded by His servants (1 Kgs 22:19!22; Isa 6; Ezek 1:26), standing is a signof an extraordinary event (Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: AnInterpretation of Psalm 82,” HUCA 40!41 (1969!1970): 127). “Standing up” or “rising” inHebrew expresses imminent action (e.g., Gen 13:17; 19:15; 27:43; 31:13; Num 10:35; Deut10:11; Pss 3:7; 7:6; 9:19; 10:12; 12:5; 17:13; 35:2; 44:36; 68:1; 74:22; 76:9; 102:13; Jer2:27!28; Ezek 3:22).

40 Sarna, 170.41 In addition, there is no biblical evidence that the Israelite kings or the other nations’

kings were considered as divine by the Israelites and the biblical writers. The Israelite kingswere instructed to regard themselves as equal to their people and accountable to God (Deut17:18-20; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:30-32). The notion that Ps 82 concerns the foreign divine kingsand not the Israelite judges and leaders renders the message of the psalm irrelevant for theIsraelite worshipers, except that it uplifts the sovereignty of the God of Israel. Yet the psalmgives specific and detailed description of the injustices and faults of the accused in vv. 2-4

47


seems to involve the leaders and the people of Israel, causing readers toreassess v. 1, and possibly interpret it as picturing an assembly of Israel.

Verse 6 seems to support the notion that the “gods” are leaders ofIsrael, because it calls the “gods” “the children of the Most High,” aprivilege to which the people who worship the God Most High may beentitled (Gen 14:19; Pss 91:1; 92:1).42 Yet a serious difficulty isencountered in v. 7, where the “gods” are sentenced to die “like men”(ke’adam). The word ’adam denotes human beings (Gen 1:26!27; 3:22;Pss 11:4; 12:1; 90:3). A question poses itself: Why does the psalmiststress that the condemned will die “like men,” if they are human beings?Clearly if they are going to die like mortals, they are not mortals.43 Thisdifficulty may cause readers to reassess the meaning of the psalm, andreconsider the notions of pagan gods. Yet, although v. 7 seemscompatible with the view that the “gods” are pagan gods who arestripped of their immortality, the notion that God ever called the pagangods His children (v. 6) is incongruous with the psalms’ oftenproclaimed loathing of idols (Pss 96:5; 97:7; 115:5!7).

On the other hand, angels are called “the sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1;38:7; Ps 29:1), and so seem to better fit the psalm’s context than thepagan gods. Certain biblical texts tell about the involvement of angels inhuman affairs. For example, as God’s messengers, angels deliver God’sword to people (e.g., Num 22:31!35). Angels are also given the task ofprotecting the righteous (e.g., Ps 91:11!12). However, angels are never

that can be hardly considered as the proclamation of judgment over the foreign kings. Inother biblical texts, accusations similar to those found in vv. 2-4 describe the failures of theIsraelite leaders and the people, and not of the foreign kings (e.g., Pss 50:7, 16-20; 89:30-32;Isa 1:23; 3:13-15; 10:1-2; Jer 5:28, 31; 7:5-6; 22:2-3; Ezek 22:6-7).

42 God frequently refers to the people of Israel as His children, and to Himself as theirFather (Ps 89:26; Isa 49:15; Jer 3:19; 31:20; Hos 11:1; Mal 1:6). In Ps 2, the Lord regardsIsrael’s king as His son (beni) (vv. 7, 12). “The sons of Zion” (bene tsiyyon) represent thepeople of God (Ps 149:2). In this psalm thus, judges are possibly compared to “gods”(’elohim) because they are given sovereignty over other fellow human beings in maintainingjustice in society (Exod 21:6; 22:8, 9; 2 Chr 19:6!11). In the New Testament, Jesus appliesthe words “you are gods” (quoting Ps 82:6) to those “to whom the word of God came,” thatis, the prophets and kings of Israel (John 10:34, 35).

43 The NIV has “like mere mortals” (v. 7). This translation seems to be interpretativeto fit the notion that the “gods” are human judges who are condemned by God to die as“mere” or “ordinary” mortals. This rendering is not without problems. For example, doesthis mean that judges would otherwise experience a kind of death that is different fromordinary people’s death?

48


invested with judiciary power, and so could hardly be represented in vv.2!4.44

The other two key words in the psalm are also repeated with theirvariant meanings. The word shapat is used differently in the psalm: itprobably means “judge” in vv. 1 and 2, “deliver” or “defend” in v. 3, and“rule” or “govern” in v. 8. The word ’erets depicts the physical earth inv. 5. In v. 8 ’erets parallels kol haggoyim (“all nations”), and depicts allhumanity. The exact meaning of the repeated polyvalent words oftenremains ambiguous until the remainder of the psalm elucidates theirconnotation.

This short overview of the psalm seems to demonstrate that thepoetic ambiguity of Ps 82 is engaging and challenging. Readers thusbegin to read the psalm one way, but then a later verse causes them toreexamine their initial understanding of the psalm. In fact, sustainedambiguity in the psalm may cause readers to reread and reassess thepsalm several times by the time they finish reading the poem. Elmer B.Smick points out that “[c]uriously the Psalm seems to move in bothdirections,”45 namely it depicts God’s judgment over both deities andhuman judges.46 Von Herbert Niehr argues that the interpretation of Ps82 has to involve arguments which are brought forward for both

44 T. Longman argues that “God rebukes the angels (gods) for not upholding justice forthe vulnerable (the weak, fatherless, poor, oppressed, needy) who are without aid and haveno resources to combat those who want to take advantage of them (the wicked)” (Longman,306). Yet nowhere in the Scripture do we see that God assigned such work to angels. Theweakness of this argument lies also in the fact that angels are judged for their supposedfailure to protect the weak from the wicked, while the wicked, who are the main source ofinjustice and suffering, are not judged in this psalm.

45 Smick, 94.46 Yet Smick favors the interpretation of the “gods” as human judges (Smick, 95!97).

However, his explanation of v. 7 is not satisfactory. Smick acknowledges that if the “gods”are going to die like mortals, then they are not mortals. However, he then attempts to denythis reasoning by pointing to the Old Testament prohibition of imputing personality to falsegods and John 10, which sees the “gods” as humans. In addition, he points to the psalm’sinclusio (vv. 1 and 8), and concludes that v. 1 speaks about earth (and not about heaven)because v. 8 speaks about God’s triumph on earth (Smick, 95). This interpretation does notexplain the aforementioned reasoning that if the “gods” are going to die like mortals, thenthey are not mortals (v. 7). Smick attempts to explain why this reasoning cannot be sustainedin the light of other biblical texts, but does not show why it cannot be sustained by thepsalm’s context. Actually he offers no interpretation of v. 7.

49


interpretations. He argues that choosing between deities and humans as“gods” in vv. 1b and 6 is a wrong alternative.47

Ambiguity appears to be deliberate and the creative part of thegeneral outlook of the psalm. If the psalmist lacked other words forpagan gods, angels, judges, kings, or whatever was intended by ’elohimin vv. 1b and 6, then we might maintain that the psalmist had to riskmisunderstanding on the part of his hearers and readers. However,because there are other words to depict them, which are more commonand accurate than ’elohim or ‘adat ’el which are used in this psalm,48 it ishighly possible that the psalmist deliberately created ambiguity to engagereaders to reread the poem and search for its meaning, and as they do thisthey recognize the truth of the various proposals in the psalm and theirrich application in different life situations. In other words, the effect ofpoetic ambiguity is that, upon reflection, readers realize that variousoptions are possible and theologically true. These effects would be lost ifthe ambiguity was resolved by preferring only one interpretation. In most

47 Von Herbert Niehr, “Götter oder Menschen – eine falsche Alternative Bemerkungenzu Ps 82,” ZAW 99/1 (1987): 95. Niehr seeks to incorporate the arguments of bothalternatives, and interprets the “gods” as the Canaanite officials who practiced socialinjustice. He argues that the polytheistic pantheon was understood to be in analogy to theworld, namely the actions of the officials corresponded to the actions of gods which theyhonored. God’s judgement of the Canaanite officials is thus also judgement of their gods(Ibid., 94!98). This proposal has advantage of recognizing that more than one group ofaddressees is meant in the psalm. However, Niehr’s “middle course” in the interpretation ofPs 82 seems to undermine the full theological potential of the psalm’s deliberate poeticambiguity by limiting the psalm to one alternative.

48 In numerous other biblical texts, the word ’elohim is often accompanied by someother words when it depicts the pagan gods. The following are some of the frequent phrases:’elohim ’acherim (“other gods”) (2 Kgs 17:35!38; 22: 17; 2 Chr 7:19), ’elohehaggoyim/ha‘ammim (“the gods of the nations”) (2 Kgs 18:33; 19:12; 1 Chr 16:26; Ps 96:5),’elohe ha‘amme ha’arets (the gods of the peoples of the land) (1 Chr 5:25), ’elohe hannekar("the foreign gods") (Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3; 2 Chr 33:15),’elil (“idol”) (1 Chr 16:26; Ps96:5). In Ps 97:7 ’elohim is described as pesel (“graven image”) and ’elil (“idol”). In Isa 21:9’elohim is accompanied by kesil (“graven image”). These words help the reader immediatelyrecognize that ’elohim is meant to depict the pagan gods, and not the God of Israel.However, these and other descriptive words are absent from Ps 82. Several Hebrew wordsdepict human authorities, like judges, kings, and princes. Some of these words are: shopet(“judge”) (1 Chr 17:10; 2 Chr 1:2; Pss 2:10; 141:6; 148:11), sar (“prince”) (Pss 68:27;105:22; 119:23; 148:11), melek (“king”) (Pss 2:10; 68:29; 72:11; 76:12; 148:11), nadib(“noble one”) (Pss 47:9; 83:11; 107:40; 113:8; 118:9), nagid (“prince”) (Ps 76:12), nasik(“prince”) (Ps 83:11). The common words to depict angels or heavenly beings are: mal’ak(“angel”) (Pss 78:49; 91:11; 103:20; 104:4; 148:2), and tsaba’ (“host”) (Ps 103:21; 148:2).

50


psalms when the word ’elohim denotes the gods of other nations, thepsalmists prefer to use some other words to depict the God of Israel (e.g.,yhwh [the LORD], ’adonay [the Lord]), probably to avoid closeassociation of God with idols or misapprehension on the part of readersand hearers (Pss 86:8; 95:3; 96:4!5; 97:9; 135:8), but not in this psalm.49

Ambiguity allows the poet to play with words.50 The psalm thus engagesthe word ’elohim (“God,” “gods”) in an intriguing word play toemphasize God’s judgment against the corrupt “gods.” Wordplay isbased on a kind of polysemy, namely the word ’elohim is repeated withvarious modifications. Certain real or imagined authorities are perceivedas ’elohim (“gods”) by people, because they represent the ’elohim(“God”), the supreme Judge, and administer justice on earth (vv. 2!4).However, because these ’elohim (“gods”) show no justice, no likeness orcorrespondence exists between them and the ’elohim (“God”) who lovesjustice (Deut 10:18; Pss 10:14; 68:5), and thus they cease to beconsidered as ’elohim (“gods”) (vv. 6!7). The psalmist aims to reachwith this message not only the fellow Israelite believers by appealing tothe Torah in vv. 2!4, but also all nations (v. 8).

Wordplays have different functions. One of the functions, whichseems to be relevant here, is to show that appearance can be deceptive.51

The psalmist highlights the deceptive character of the “gods” by

49 However, Ps 82 is not the only psalm that uses the word ’elohim to depict both theGod of Israel and the gods of other nations in the same literary context. A similar exampleis found in Ps 136:2. However, the phrase ’elohe ha’elohim (“the God of gods”) in Ps 136:2,which is Hebrew superlative meaning “the greatest God,” does not have as great significancefor the interpretation of Ps 136 as the understanding of ’elohim has for the interpretation ofPs 82.

50 Kabergs and Ausloos rightly maintain that the term “wordplay” must not beunderstood as some kind of “play” with no “serious” function. Wordplay is sometimeswrongly associated by some authors with exclusively comic scenes. As seen in classicaltimes, wordplay was not only present in comedy, but also constitutive of the genre oftragedy. The “play” with different aspects of words often betrays serious purposes, far morefrequently than it does humorous ones (Kabergs and Ausloos, 9, 11).

51 A good example is Ps 5:9 with its contrast between the deviousness of the psalmist’senemies and their smooth speech (“For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inwardpart [qereb] is destruction; their throat is an open tomb [qeber]; they flatter with theirtongue”) (emphasis supplied). Some other functions of wordplay are: 1) to amuse andsustain interest (especially puns on proper names); 2) to assist composition; 3) to lendauthenticity to the poet, because wordplay was evidence of a poet’s mastery of language; 4)to equate two disparate things by playing on the similarity of their names; and 5) to denotereversal of fortune (Watson, 245!246).

51


depicting them with the same word that is used to represent the livingGod of Israel (’elohim). The deceitfulness of the “gods” is so great thatthey appear to be equal to God, but in reality they are completelyopposite of Him in both nature (the “gods” are mortal, and God isimmortal) and character (the “gods” are unjust, and God is just). Thewordplay on ’elohim gives also a humorous twist to the “gods,” whowere considered exalted but were brought low by the only true ’elohim.In this psalm, poetic ambiguity is creative and deliberate, and so it has tobe acknowledged as a constitutive part of the psalm’s message. Seekingto resolve the psalm’s ambiguity can be damaging, because poeticambiguity serves to impress an important theological message uponreaders. This brings us to the next question in our study, namely apossible theological reason for the ambiguity.

A Theological Reason for AmbiguityGiven ambiguous connotation and the negative context, the word

’elohim (“gods”) in vv. 1b and 6 may represent everything that pretendsto take God’s place and competes for people’s devotion with God, who isthe sovereign Judge and Sustainer of the world. The psalmist achieves toexpress multiple meanings in a terse style, which is typical of Hebrewpoetry, by creating poetic ambiguity. Poetic ambiguity in the psalmhighlights an important theological point that there are only two sides inthe judgment: 1) God, who is the Judge, and 2) every human and otherperceived powers. There is irony in the psalmist's use of the same word,’elohim, to depict both the unique and supreme God and those who onlypretend to be or are falsely perceived as sovereign but are not.

Poetic ambiguity gives a special appeal to the psalm and points to itsgreat potential. The ambiguous moments in the psalm are likely meant toengage the reader to search deeply for the intended meaning and provokehim to think of the various possible “gods” in his world that are or willbe put on trial by the sovereign God. Hopefully the reader will be drivento identify his “gods,” namely people, institutions, or things that he relieson for life and security more than on the living God, and let God judgehis idolatry as well. In this way the psalm demonstrates its potential toput a great number of subjects on the trial and proclaim all the possible“gods” unrighteous and impotent to secure the world. Poetic ambiguitythus permits the psalm to convey multivalent theological possibilities,because it is “a tool that writers use to involve readers in the process of

52


creating meaning because of the need to continually reread andrecontextualize a text.”52

In the New Testament, Jesus quotes v. 6 to prove that he is notbreaking the law of God when he speaks of his unity with his Father(John 10:30!36). Jesus claims that if the Scripture was not in errorcalling the mortals “gods,” than neither is there error in calling the onewhom God consecrated “the son of God” (vv. 35!36).53 The veryambiguity of ’elohim allows Jesus to make the argument he does in John10. In Ps 82 ’elohim is given a negative connotation, because ’elohimmisrepresent God before the people and abuse their God-givenprivileges. This means that ’elohim can have a positive connotation in adifferent context, namely if ’elohim are devoted to God and His calling,like Jesus is. In his argument Jesus does not refer to the negativeinference of ’elohim in Ps 82, but simply points to the fact that evenmortals are called ’elohim in the Scripture and so proves that hisaccusers’ claim in v. 33 is without effect.

Although it involves deliberate ambiguity, the psalm is by no meansvague. The psalm’s theological boundaries are clearly defined. Thepsalm is framed between the repeated proclamations of God’s dominionas just Judge (vv. 1, 8). Another significant recurring word in the psalmis kol (“all”) (vv. 5, 6, 8). This word highlights the totality of depravityof the world: “all the foundations of the earth” are falling apart (v. 5),and “all of you” have fallen short of God’s righteousness (v. 6). Theword kol highlights also another key theological point in the psalm: thetotality of God’s rule as the answer for the world’s total depravity (v. 8).These theological truths are given special attention in the rest of theScripture (e.g., Pss 96:13; 98:9; Isa 11:4; 53:6; Rom 3:23). The psalmmethodically leads towards one possible conclusion: God is the supremeand only Judge (v. 8), because all “gods” are unrighteous and unreliable.The proclamation of God’s sovereignty is a matter of survival of theworld, because only God can stop and undo the destructive effects ofinjustice and provide stability and security to the world.

Although written many centuries ago, the psalm’s assessment ofreality is strikingly contemporary. The mastery of the psalm to bring ontrial every possible “god” is an answer to the sinful humanity’spropensity to design and follow myriads of “gods” (1 Kgs 11:33; 2 Kgs

52 Firth, 11.53 See Neyrey, 655!663, Homcy, 485!491, and Ackerman, 186!191.

53


21:3; Isa 49:7!13; Rom 1:23, 25; 1 Cor 8:5). The ambiguity of who orwhat the “gods” in vv. 1b and 6 represent gives the psalm a timelessquality that has enabled God’s people in all generations to proclaimGod’s sovereignty over every power that rises itself to usurp God’s placeor is disloyal to His requirements.

Dragoslava Santrac is an adjunct professor of religion at the WashingtonAdventist University, Takoma Park, MD. In the past she served as an associateprofessor of biblical languages and Old Testament at the University of theSouthern Caribbean, Trinidad, WI, and at Belgrade Theological Seminary,Serbia. She is a contributor to the forthcoming Seventh-day AdventistInternational Bible Commentary (the volume on Psalms 76-150)[email protected]

54

god and “gods” — poetic ambiguity and wordplay: a proposal ...archive.atsjats.org/santrac d -...

Documents